IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Arb.Appln. No.802 of 2024 M/s.Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., rep. by its Authorised Representative Santhosh Kumar .. Applicant vs Oliver Alex J. .. Respondent ORDER Notice sent to the respondent has been duly served as seen from the affidavit of service. The delivery report has also been enclosed along with the affidavit of service. Despite service of notice, the respondent has chosen not to enter appearance. 2.This Court by its order dated 11.03.2025, directed the respondent to furnish security for a sum of Rs.17,43,941.92 on or before 31.03.2025, failing which this Court had made it clear that it will be constrained to order attachment of the property, morefully described in the schedule to the judges summons. The respondent is set exparte by this Court. 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J. vga 3.Since the respondent has failed to furnish security on or before 31.03.2025 as directed by this Court on 11.03.2025, the order of attachment follows. Accordingly, this application is allowed as prayed for and the property morefully described in the schedule to the judges summons is ordered to be attached by this Court. 4.The applicant is permitted to communicate this order to the concerned Sub Registrar Office, where the property is located, to effect the order of attachment in their records. 01.04.2025 vga Arb.Appln. No.802 of 2024 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis